Marco conceptual

books, draught-boards bound and lettered on the back, scientific treatises, almanacs, statutes at large ..- and generally all those volumes which "no gentleman's library should be without".*

This authority meant that even those who disliked Hume's work saw potential advantages in appealing to his 'wisdom' - John Russell and Major Cartwright, for exeimple, both referred their audiences to 'the sagacious H u m e ' when

it suited them to.’ However, this same air of authority, could dissolve into comical dependence in the case of writers for whom Hume's was the only history to which they had ready access. A particularly amusing example is provided by Thomas Brooke Clarke, Chaplain in Ordinary to the Prince of Wales and Domestic Chaplain to the Duke of Cumberland, who, in the preface of his Memoirs of the K i n g 's Supremacy (1809) had to apologise for the erroneous dates given at the heads of all his chapters, due to the misleading nature of the dating of Hume's chapter-break after Charles's execution - which, at short notice, he had only been able to check against Smollett. Since the letter's treatment of the Stuart period was so derivative

* Quoted in J.H. Burton, The Book-Hunter, new ed. (Edinburgh & London, 1882), p. 152.

’ The Debate in Both Houses of Parliament, Relative to the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, as Reported in the "The Times" Newspaper, with a Preface by the Rev. John Burdler, A.M.

(London, 1828), p. 8; J. Cartwright, The English Constitution Produced and Illustrated (London, 1823), p. 54 - a work aimed at countering Paine's Humean deconstruction of the ancient constitution.

of Hume's, as discussed in chapter one, it is hardly surprising that Clarke found himself confirmed in his error.® Such dependence upon Hume must have been a common enough situation. Less dramatically, there was the obvious reliance of some reviewers and popular history-writers on Hume as the reference of first resort. All this in turn worked to amplify the H i s t o r y 's importance in British historical culture.

The Monthly Review referred to the problems caused by Hume's unchallenged supremacy in 1819, when it complained of the inferiority of historical works written since Hume's, and their abject dependence upon his.* All emergent histories of England until Froude's were judged by a Humean standard in the reviews. In an attempt to escape this Humean straightjacket, John Lingard 'studiously avoided consulting H u m e ' during the composition of his History of E n gland. He claimed he hardly knew in what passages he differed from Hume. This did not stop John Allen in the Edinburgh from claiming Lingard's work was one long attack on Hume. The Catholic historian could not, however, help being pleased when The British Critic compared 'some points' of his work favourably with

® T. Brooke Clarke, Memoirs of the King's Supremacy; and of the Rise Progress and Results of the Supremacy of the Pope, in Different Ages and Nations, so far as Relates to Civil Affairs

(London, 1809), p. v i .

* The Monthly Rev i e w , (enlarged series), vol. 89 (1819), pp. 300-301.

198 Hume ' s .

In the long term, Lingard's history failed to displace Hume's as 'standard text' - despite relative

longevity, its author's religious persuasion undermined the attractions of its greater accuracy. Suspicion dogged an author who was ' a strict Roman Catholic, and as such shields the church in every instance.'^ Chambers's Cyclopaedia of English Literature, in 1844, noted that Lingard was 'generally more impartial than Hume, or even Robertson', however he added that 'it is undeniable that his religious opinions have in some cases perverted the fidelity of his history'.^ His favourable treatment of Mary Tudor - as contrasted with Hume's traditional villainess - was not likely to be welcomed by a nineteenth- century audience. For example. The Pictorial History of England - not a work generally fond of Hume - specifically recommended his account of the queen's reign over that of Lingard. The Reverend H.J. Todd, meanwhile, saw fit to employ 'the indignant eloquence of H u m e ' in attacking Lingard's account of Mary.“ Lingard's more iconoclastic

M. Haile & E. Bonney, Life and Letters of John Lingard 1771-1851 (London, 1911), pp. 208, 183. The British Review, and London Critical Journal was not the only periodical to believe that the most telling way to review Lingard's work was 'by comparing some parts of his narrative with the corresponding narrative of Hume'. Vol. 16 (1820), p. 429.

“ A Penny History of England (London, 1830?), p. 146.

“ R. Chambers, ed. Cyclopaedia of English Literature (Edinburgh, 1844), vol. 2, p. 640.

“ The Pictorial History of England: being a History of the People as well as a History of the Kingdom (London, 1837-41), vol. 2, p. 539; H.J. Todd, A Reply to Dr. Lingard's Vindication

attitude to figures such as King Alfred was equally unlikely to win more public respect than Hume e n j o y e d . I n the '50s, Lingard had to be satisfied with standing on an equal basis with Hume as a set text for classmen at O x f o r d . P r e v i o u s l y an American publisher had gone to the trouble of interlacing an edition of Hume with

'corrections' from Lingard - a position of subordination which was continued through to The S t u d e n t 's H u m e . where Lingard was among the authors relegated to providing a gloss on Hume's narrative.^* Quiet infidelity on the part of an author, it seems, was preferable to vocal Catholicism as far as most nineteenth-century reviewers of historical works were concerned.

The works of Hallam and Brodie were more explicitly extended critiques of Hume's version of British history - the latter even setting itself out as such in its title. Even Mackintosh, for merely intending to write the history

of his History of England, as Far as Respects Archbishop Cranmer (London, 1827), p. 116.

J. Lingard, The History of England, from the First Invasion bv the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 1688 (London, 1883), vol. 5, pp. 526-534; vol. 1, pp. 197, 209.

“ P.R.H. Slee, Learning and a liberal education. The study of modern history in the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester, 1800-1914 (Manchester, 1986), p. 42.

The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar, to the Revolution in 1688. by David Hume, Esg. With Notes and References, Exhibiting the most important differences between the author and Dr. Lingard (Philadelphia, 1856), first published 1832? D. Hume, The Student's Hume. A History of England from the Earliest Times to the Revolution in 1688 (London, 1859), e.g. pp. 22, 243, 276, 439. Earlier the British Critic had suggested that Lingard limit himself to filling up the parts of Hume which were